Linking DCS with ArmA

[Eight Ball]

Supporting something like this would require lot of time from both BI and ED, would delay both Arma 3 and our 'Next Gen Fighter' with minimal chance of return.

I haven't mentioned any specific title, I know it's too early to link ArmA3 and DCS: Fighter. I was talking about a middle/long term project.

 

Actually this tread (and the one on the BIS forum) wasn't even a suggestion, it was made to see the interest people had for this possibilty.

 

VBS+Steel beasts is obviously aimed at the military market, which is totaly different from the 'civ' market. They can overlook/workaround some problems if the core functionality is there and mostly they can afford to fund such project.

LVC Game isn't as costly as one might think. The base product cost $15.000 and as you can see it isn't exclusively aimed at the military, X-plane is one of the supported game.

 

And how do you know it doesn't occur in VBS+SB, is there a video demonstration.?

No, I haven't found any video showcasing the use of VBS2 and Steel Beast but there are a few video of others softwares linked to VBS2 :

 

There are tons of problems that would have to be addresed. Just to name a that quickly come in my mind.

- all entitnies from DCS would have to be present in Arma 2 and vice versa.

Not necessarily, you wouldn't need to have each variant of each class. e.g. It doesn't matter if in ArmA a soldier is holding M4 wearing a baseball cap and ACU camo while in DCS it is shown as holding a M16 with a Woodland camo. Same with vehicles.

DCS could use a generic model representing several ArmA's variants as long as the balistic/damages are tuned accordingly.

There could be a relatively large tolerance since most of the units will not be in direct "competition".

- weapons damage - the mk82 in arma 2 has different blast radius then the DCS one, so which one do you use?

Not a real problem IMO, can be tuned quite easily (at least in ArmA)

 

- Which AI do you use? The infantry AI in Arma 2 is better then in DCS, but on the other hand the proper SAMs are non-existant in Arma world, so these have to handled by DCS

- Different lock rates - the locking process in Arma 2 is very basic, right-click/TAB to lock and Fire. There is no radar support, so naturally there is huge difference between an DCS AI Tunguska and an Arma 2 player Tunguska.

- Missile tracking - which one do you use?

Or Worse - bullets ballistics - which one?

- You need to have support in both games for forcing the entities to do, what the other game does. So when a player in Arma 2 fires a missile you can force a unit in DCS to fire it's missile. You then need to pair both missiles and force one missile to mimic the other. When a tank in Arma 2 target a DCS plane you need to force the DCS tank to lock the same DCS plane, and I need to get a LWS warning.

Those points, and many others, would indeed require more work to find a proper balance.

Just to be clear, I didn't came here saying "hey look there's LVC Game so now it's gonna be as easy as ABC to connect ArmA and DCS".

All I wanted was to show people it was possible to link 2 "games" using different engines. The technology exists and works.

Now I'm not a game developer, I can't provide an answer for every problem that would rise up from the linking of DCS and ArmA.

However it seems to me, with a +/- long term approach in mind, those problems could be overcome.

 

Yes it would require a lot of work.

But in my opinion and with the limited understanding I have of the subject it seems to me the workload would not be bigger than creating a FPS interface for ED or developing the aerial part of ArmA for BIS.

Those too are going to require a tremendous workload in an area both developers have little to no experience and/or documentation.

 

From what we know so far, both studios have the same goal : creating a realistic and complete combat experience.

They both started from different points but they're heading to the same direction.

Soon or late those 2 lines will evolve in parrallel.

What I'm afraid of is having 2 similar products, basicaly offering the same experience but each forever lacking what the other is doing better.

I don't see ED coming close to BIS level when it comes to FPS just like I don't see BIS coming close to ED level when it comes to flight sim.

I don't doubt of their respectives capacity but we live in a world with limited time and ressources.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Eight Ball

[DMarkwick]

Hello DMarkwick :)

 

Could you explain what makes DCS so different from Steal Beast that it would require the "workaround" you've suggested ?

Isn't it the whole purpose of LVC Game to "translate" the received information into something the other software can read ?

 

Well I can't tell you what makes Steeel Beasts so different, I would have suggested the same approach (particularly as Steel beasts has a rather more primitive rendering engine) and I haven't seen any footage or ingame images to try & assess. And I assume the LVC translation to be concerned with positional & rotational etc information rather than geometry & terrain etc.

 

Using the RV engine to render the outside view of DCS would be a serious drawback. It isn't really made to handle the specific needs of a flight sim (view distance,...)

 

And also the DCS engine is not designed to handle the dense world of an ArmA map. So some compromise will be made somewhere along the line. The ArmA engine has the possibility of rendering terrain far beyond it's object rendering abilities, and also that objects can have different LoD levels and individual rendering distances, then some tweak of the settings can possibly be found that has a reasonable look.

 

I have little to no knowledge of these things but from what I understand the workload isn't exactly split in half between the 2 softwares.

From the little sketch I've posted in the first post it looks like LVC game relies more on one engine and the other software is "simply" plugged into this.

 

I think it's safe to assume ArmA could "easily" replace VBS in this sketch but why DCS couldn't replace Steal Beast as easily ?

Why would this create DCS approximation of an ArmA map while it doesn't occur with VBS+Steal beast ?

 

Don't want to bother you but if you have some time I'd be glad to learn a lil bit more ;)

 

As mentioned I don't know the extent to which Steel beasts is integrated into VBS and don't have any knowledge of it :) I only post up my own thoughts on how the complexities of two systems can pass out the least amount of data to each other to be useful. As such, positional, ordnance & collision data seem to be the bulk.

[winchesterdelta1]

Reading all of this, I have come to one conclusion. The BiS forums are DEAD.

 

Oh, and ED should get on the train and start selling physical products such as T-shirts and "fill to tabs" beer mugs.

 

 

LoL BIS forums are death???? You must be living on another planet. New Mods and addons are made everyday... New people post things everyday, old people are still posting since Operation Flashpoint, new Beta patches comes out atleast once a week. Please dont tell lies because you personally dont have a clue where to look.

[Depth]

I think you'd have better luck with linking a tank simulator with DCS.

[OutOnTheOP]

Agreed; SB Pro PE would be a better partner; among other things, the level of terrain detail is closer to DCS.

 

Also, DCS:A-10 and DCS:BS players spend a lot more time interacting with vehicles (either shooting at them or shot at by them) than infantry, which are only occasionally targets, damn hard to spot, and very, very rarely threats.

 

SB Pro PE may not have playable dedicated AAA assets modeled yet, but they DO have a number of IFVs with rapid-fire cannon, to include some with airburst fuzes with AAA fuze modes; it would at least give the ground players a way to fight back.

[Wolfie]

...very, very rarely threats.

 

Infantry, especially Special Forces types, are EXTREME threats in Arma2/ACE2 if you are flying low. Usually, someone has, at the least, an RPG-7, which could be used in ambush against a low and slow heli. Not to mention 7.62 MG's, tripod belt feds, and even 25mm M109 rifles. There's usually at least a few MANPADS down on the ground as well, and carried inside some of the vehicles. Arma's VERY detailed.

 

As for someone above mentioning view distance, its pretty decent for heli's and low flying A-10's keeping below about 5000 -7000 feet.

[213]

in other words super limited at this point. oh and enjoy playing lan with 4 other guys. this isn't going to be possible in a normal multiplay environment.

 

lmao at how the terrain mesh doesn't even match. infantry? enjoy guys buried 5 feet under the ground.

[Wolfie]

Lol, how would you know? You haven't even tried it yet. People like you are a fail before you even start. I think guy's like you just don't want FPS linked with flight sim. Which is the future. Arma's TOH. Even MMOFPS's are starting to come out now. Dust 514. This is the future. The days of flight sim only are done. Eventually, flight sim only will become such a extreme niche that it will no longer be profitable to pursue. And I'm for its demise. I like some human intelligence on the ground, and I like to be able to get out of my jet, etc, with as much realism as my CPU/GPU can handle.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Wolfie

[Wichid]

I would just wait for Arma 3 if you want a ground/air war simulator. There should be some great mods to make this suit everyones taste (ie. current day technology).

 

Does DCS even have a published, well documented, Software Development Kit yet to use for integration?

[shagrat]

Lol, how would you know? You haven't even tried it yet. People like you are a fail before you even start. I think guy's like you just don't want FPS linked with flight sim. Which is the future. Arma's TOH. Even MMOFPS's are starting to come out now. This is the future. The days of flight sim only are done. Eventually, flight sim only will become such a extreme niche that it will no longer be profitable to pursue. And I'm for its demise. I like some human intelligence on the ground, and I like to be able to get out of my jet, etc, with as much realism as my CPU/GPU can handle.

 

You are aware that Flight Sim is already a rare niche and definitely not profitable in the industries sense, are you?

ED produces high fidelity Sims for the military, if I remember correct A-10C was made for the Air National Guard as training aid for Hogdrivers.

DCS is a - let's say lucky coincidence - so if you, me or some thousand clans buy it or not will not decide the fate of military flight sims I guess. The future military contracts might will...

 

I have the weird feeling ArmA will go along the road of combining Battlefield3 with HAWX rather than moving into the extreme niche of ultra realism. That said in ArmA you may have MANPAD, but in DCS the MANPAD Guys are the once watching there Tanks getting blasted away by CBU-97 and can do nothing about it. Stay high - don't die :-)

All weapons usually implemented by infantry have a lack of range. What is a threat is the fighter jets which you counter with CAP. This to my knowledge is planned with FC3, already.

 

I would agree with the idea of combined ops for helis they are usually low enough to be endangered by ground troops.

And last but not least: If you know the woods are bristling with small arms, MANPADs, BMPs I would call in a B-52 and carpet bomb the area if I were the Commander :-) ...at least if my real live depends on it (...ok, just kidding!)

Edited February 25, 2012 by shagrat

[Peyoteros]

Wishful dreaming... I'd love to participate in the "study sim level" battlefield with all the units in it as a separate products. For example, today you feel like tank battle, you join battle in your Abram’s, you get three of your mates in it and off you go, or T90, or Merkava or... Someone else maybe feels like AH64 or Mi-28... someone feels like Su27 or F15E... Catch my drift? One battle, two commanders, lots of fun... Wishful dreaming... Hopefully in my lifetime...

[OutOnTheOP]

Pffh, why kidding? That's EXACTLY what you should do if you know an area's packed with hostile infantry (assuming you have sufficient clearance from the target area, and there's low risk of collateral damage).

 

Before we pushed into an area we were pretty sure AQ was using as a strongpoint, we had a preplan B-1B mission fly over and put JDAMs along the treeline, into every fordable point on the river, every major high speed avenue of approach (road intersections), and along the areas they had previously used as mortar firing points. If we'll do it for suppression effects against someone that might not even be there, why not against bad guys we KNOW are there?

[Wolfie]

Yes, but sometimes you want to take the village intact, with the civilians still alive... :thumbup:

 

We can call in air support, etc in Arma. I'm pretty sure we have B-52's as well. The only problems I have with Arma are some character movement and unrealistic flight sim. If you want to do the strategic move, you can put yourself as high command and guide whole battalions, even divisions into battle. Its pretty amazing and the AI are pretty realistic in their decisions (they just need a little push sometimes). Watching 4 A-10's attack a village defended by 2 Tunguska's and a motorized infantry battalion is pretty interesting. Then you tell your tank company to move in.

 

As for Arma 3, I think I'll be sticking with Arma2/ACE2 for the foreseeable future. The ACE mods will still be far more realistic.

 

My biggest thing now is that I want to see realistic flight sim like DCS come into Arma.

[RustyNuts]

I think it would be easier and actually in the realm of reality to just expand DCS's capability into the FPS level in game.

 

The IL2 mod community has made drivable jeeps which made the landscape huge when your running around at that level and actually quite hairy when close to an active battlefield.

 

The object detail in DCS is actually very good close up and spawning in to man a AAA position, be a manpad or ride in a BMP manning the gun into the battlefield. It would look awesome and proof is there it can be done.

Imagine hiding in the tress and walking out to lock up a Blackshark or low flying A10C (as some people just can't help themselves ;-) ) with your shoulder launched SAM?

No it wouldn't have all the detail and capabilities of ArmA but it would achieve close to the desired effect IMO.

[Wolfie]

I think it would be easier and actually in the realm of reality to just expand DCS's capability into the FPS level in game.

 

I agree. Were not far from the level of Arma 2 right now. Just increase hills, water sources, and put down some more thought out villages with grass, and we'd be there. I was walking around a little the other day (after I ejected) between some buildings, as was rather startled that they actually had some detail to them. I don't see what is stopping us from a good Arma 2 landscape. Its not CPU/GPU power. I play warthog on a low level notebook.

 

Maybe its the people who want everything at 200 fps.

[Eight Ball]

I agree. Were not far from the level of Arma 2 right now.

 

You're joking, right ?

 

 

(just in case you were not joking : DCS above, ArmA under)

Both pics were taken with the same "hit" on performances, both games were running at 15FPS, in DCS everything was maxed out, in ArmA it was between medium and high with 3k view distance.

 

 

No way you'll get a 300.000Km² map as detailled as ArmA 2 maps. And yes, it is about GPU/CPU performances.

 

Right now, playing as a soldier or anything at ground level on a DCS map would be boring as f*ck.

It's just flat, flat, flat.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Eight Ball

[Frostiken]

Yeah the terrain in ArmA2 is really quite beautiful... nothing in DCS has yet compared to the first time I was flying through the hills with how realistic the forests looked...

[Slayer]

COD team is adding driveable tanks, cars and AA guns...different genre I know but same idea. Too bad that sim runs like $h!t...

[CarneyUK]

Voted yes, only because if you did have 1000 players, did have the computer power to run it...then it would be an awesome online battle...probabley never gonna happen though (sure some real life military simulators are all linked together??)

 

What I would like to see....DCS TOR!.....You would fly the A10C/KA-50 sim exactly as we do now, except one or more of the Tor's at or near the target area would be controlled by a real person. :joystick:

[Wolfie]

@Macadam Cow - Yeah, its somewhat flat now, but I don't see THAT much of a job to get it better. Its just going to take some time with an editor and some manpower. The grass textures would probably take the biggest hit in power. But I still play Arma2/ACE2 on my low level laptop at decent speeds. And it takes more power than Crysis. So yeah, I think a high end computer with a high end graphics card could easily manage both DCS and an Arma world. I think the BIG Question here is, would it be profitable for DCS to do it, considering it would take time and effort, and it would have to be aimed at people with higher end PCs. I would DEFINITELY have to upgrade to play such a game, but I think it would be AWESOME. Especially if we could get ACE2 people to get in on it ( think realism so real, you have to learn to sight in, load, calculate, and fire 105mm artillery). Arma is AWESOME!

[Wolfie]

COD team is adding driveable tanks, cars and AA guns...different genre I know but same idea. Too bad that sim runs like $h!t...

 

Yeah, but thats COD. COD is a curse word in the realistic fps circles.

[Grimes]

I think he meant CloD/IL2.

[Wolfie]

Lol, ok. But really, you look at the terrain of Arma 2. Whats so great about it? It wouldn't be THAT hard to improve DCS to Arma standards. Especially if you allow modders to add 3rd party buildings and objects, and work with the terrain in certain spots to make if feasible for ground FPS.

The thing that DCS really seems to lack is good AI and ground level physics ( of course, because its a flight sim ).

 

What we really need is a world editor for third party modders, with the ability to modify the terrain mesh like in Crysis 2.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Wolfie

[Eight Ball]

@Macadam Cow - Yeah, its somewhat flat now, but I don't see THAT much of a job to get it better. Its just going to take some time with an editor and some manpower.

 

No, that's the problem, you can't just add ditches and bank like that.

It's not about man power but about performances = grid and cell size.

Basicly a map is made of x amount of cell and in order to get acceptable performances you have to find a balance between the size of the cell and the amount of cell

In a game like ArmA the cells are quite small, allowing some smooth terrain variations => nice round hills tops (~~~~~)

In DCS those cells are a lot bigger => "saw shaped" hills tops ( /\/\/\ ).

 

You can find some perfect example in ArmA 2.

-Proving Ground, the 1Km² map provided with the PMC DLC, has a really small cell size => a lot of tight but smooth variation in the terrain rendering.

- Normandy map (23.000Km²) made by the community, big cell size => no ditches nor banks, closer to what we have in DCS.

 

Well I just can't play any mission on Proving Ground, the hit on performances is just too big but I have no problem playing huge D-Day missions on the Normandy map, with 10k view distance.

 

Really it isn't about man power. Yes, it'd possible to create a 300.000Km² map as detailled as ArmA 2 maps but only 10 people on earth could afford to buy a computer to run such a game.

So it's all about finding the good balance for optimal performances. And that's where lies the main problem : this balance isn't the same for a FPS or for a flight sim.

An engine made to fit one type of game might be completely unable to fit another one.

Terrain rendering is one thing but what about AIs ? What about animations ? etc.

The amount of work to turn a flight sim into a FPS (& vice versa) is tremendous.

 

 

That's where this linking technology really shines. It allows you to connect 2 differents games using 2 differents engines made for 2 differents purposes without any dramatic concessions.

 

As I said earlier I have no doubts both studios are capable of improving their own universe on their own.

I just see it as a waste of ressources.

BIS and ED are the best at what their doing, they have no competitor, no ones even try to compete with them !

(Well Codemaster actually did and we all know how it ended)

You know, it's like a puzzle and each studio owns the pieces the other studio is missing. There are only 2 solutions :

A) Both studios create for scratch those pieces.

B) They cooperate.

 

I don't deny this technology would be hard to put up but once it'd be done you would "instantanetly" enjoy best of both series.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Eight Ball
got a few things mixed up in the translation :p

[Wolfie]

Well, I think I want a Crysis Wars map, nestled in the Chernarus map, in the DCS map. Like a turduckin! :P

 

After looking at the BIS forums, I don't think they are going to be interested in doing this. With the advent of TOH and now TOH: Hind, they are looking to compete with DCS' Flaming cliffs (with added FPS world). I still think there flight sim sucks, but they also have an FPS world, so they truly may end up stealing away players that are of the semi-realistic flight sim genre. Why stick with flaming cliffs when you can just buy add-on modules for Arma, and buzz huge landscapes and cities? DCS needs to head towards the direction of Arma ( and I think they could do a better job! ). While it will take more powerful computers ( which are available), it could be a much more interesting, and varied world then Arma. After all, Arma is a 10 YEAR OLD engine.

 

If we want an FPS world, were going to have to look to DCS to do it, as the noose tightens around our realisitic flight sim genre's neck.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Wolfie